There's a school of thought which suggests that interactivity and compelling stories are inverse relationships: the more freedom a player has to act within a game, the more difficult it is to keep the player in the realm of a dramatic narrative. (The exception would be writing dramatic narratives for all contingencies, but there are some things that simply can't be made dramatic, so you'd have to limit the player's exploration that way.)
This got me thinking about main characters. I've read over and over that for the player to truly assume the role of the main character in a game, the main character needs to be as "ambiguous" as possible to allow the player to project his or her personality onto the character. This was true with Cloud (Final Fantasy VII) and Crono (Chrono Trigger), neither of whom spoke in their games.
But that runs counter to a lot of adventure titles. Take Tex Murphy, for example, whose dialog is often wittier and more interesting than anything the player could have come up with. Many adventure game developers go to great lengths to give their main characters personalities that "we will want to spend time with." It's almost as though the adventure game's goal is not to bring the player into the game, but to allow the player to be someone more interesting than himself/herself for a while.
My question is this: how defined are your main characters? Do you go to great lengths to make them very specific and detailed, or do you try to keep them as similar to the player as possible?
How do you think this affects your narrative? Your interactivity?
For me, my main character is pretty well fleshed out, but not quite so much as the surrounding characters. I do expect the players to assume his role, though, rather than project themselves into the game. Having the character really fleshed out has given me a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story, but the game is becoming a "trail of bread crumbs" without a lot of freedom. Perhaps this is inherent in the adventure game genre, and is requisite to telling a story.
I've seen AGS games go both ways. My opinion is that Prodigal's main character is pretty amorphous; it's easy to assume he's "like me," and the game story has him act in ways that I would choose to act (trying to seek out my brother even after he's stiffed our family). Cedric and the Revolution has a main character with a very distinct personality, and I realize that we are very different. That keeps me removed from the game, in a sense, but it's entertaining enough that I don't mind.
Any thoughts on this?
Sorry for the long post. :P
It depends. I base games on story ideas, and main characters are usually tied in with the story idea when I come up with them. So in a story that demands great specificity and detail in the protagonist, he'll have them. In a story that doesn't need such things, he probably won't. Usually this equates to stories that are more serious having more detail and personality in the hero, and stories that are a bit more lighthearted and silly having less.
Personally, I don't really think that interactivity and immersion have a lot to do with the detail in the character. I think that the detail and interactivity of the game world itself has more to do with that.
By the way, Cloud did speak in FFVII.
Grand theft auto 3 had a silent character. I didn't like it. Rather than trying to give him the impression of no character, it did. When a certain bad ass shouts at him, he doesn't have any lines or action, therefore it gives the impression that he's a coward with no backspine who just lets people have a go at him.
I don't know if this was the same reason as for why rockstar gave the following characters in the sequels character, it may have just been from feedback given.
Also, those RPGs like Alundra where the main char doesn't have any lines really gets on my nerves.
your distinction is one between role-playing and personal projection.
Early sierra games were essentially personal projection because a very generic background was given, larry wants to have sex, roger is a space janitor, graham needs to walk around in fantasyland and get killed by sliding rocks or gnomes like an idiot and so on. The characters never spoke out loud. The genesis of adventure games is after all, paper and pencil rpgs.
Lucasarts did the opposite approach, with defined characters, not avatars.
A detailed character can still make a person connect with them, in fact this is most usually the case, if the writing is good and you can empathize with what's going on. Just like with a good book or movie, the threads that are essentially the same in all men are the ones that make us feel this connection.
Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII didn't have characters, or stories for that matter. The most basic and overused cliches, in a row, 350 times in the duration of the game. It amazes me how low the standard must have become if people say FF VII is the best story-driven game they've played, or they connect with the hollow puppet that is Cloud.
Ha I don't connect with Cloud at all! Although he reminds me of a friend of mine...
I connect more so with the lead character from FF9 actually.
For me FF7's story felt so great because it was the first RPG I'd played, hence to have such a massive game with a story in it that slowly progressed as I went along was great! I wonder if this applies to many others? It's like seeing an action flick for the first time. It's so fresh and all the cliches wouldn't be known. (I'd imagine)
In RPGs empty avatars are passable, as they can put you right in the game, but in an adventure I prefer to have a 'proper' character (which is why I never got into Myst.)
Yeah, let's make that destinction. An 'empty' player character in an RPG isn't always a bad thing, because sometimes you like to take on your own role. But it doesn't work as often in adventure games, because you're playing, usually, a much stiffer storyline. I'd always prefer my adventure game players have good personality.
japanese-styled rpgs usually have the ultimate in stiff storylines. There's actually no choices of importance to be made in most of them, no way to define your character besides choosing to wield that sword or this sword. You go there, then there, this triggers that, a million random encounters on the way. On-rails gameplay of the worst kind. They're basically dumb lineart adventure games with fights.
I remember this very lucidly, I was playing one of these retarded rpgs and at some point the game tells me 'do you want to help him?' and I was confronted with a YES/NO option. I chose no. The game then tells me 'oh come on, why wouldn't you want to help?' and gives me the original 'choice' again.
Yep. Even when they come up with an original plot like in Digital Devil Saga, where you are a demon and have to eat others to survive, they fuck it up usually with saving the world stuff and a storyline that goes from A to B like a train on rails. Most adventure games give you more than one dialogue option, when RPG:s are button-mashing and the plot is totally overstretched to last 60 hours or something.
Quote from: Helm on Sun 12/03/2006 13:35:38
japanese-styled rpgs..
Dammit I was going to mention Star Wars KOTOR....
Heh apparently in Suikoden 4 when you are stuck on a desert island it asks you if you want to make a ship to leave or live there. If you say "Lets live here" about FIVE times your crewmates give up and you are then stuck on the desert island forever.
And as for:
"saving the world stuff and a storyline that goes from A to B like a train on rails."
Sounds like a lot of adventure games. :P
Quote from: Helm on Sun 12/03/2006 13:35:38
I remember this very lucidly, I was playing one of these retarded rpgs and at some point the game tells me 'do you want to help him?' and I was confronted with a YES/NO option. I chose no. The game then tells me 'oh come on, why wouldn't you want to help?' and gives me the original 'choice' again.
Ahaha, that reminds me of this (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/17/1).
(Consequently my upcoming game contains a gag that parodies those silly yes/no option choices where the only real choice you can make is "yes"...)
While we're at it, I wonder what you people would think of this article (http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2003/04/16/genderplay_successes_and_failures_in_character_designs_for_videogames.html#000316), especially the part about some games intending for the player NOT to take on the main character's role, as with Tomb Raider.
I think you have to dig pretty deep to find more than one dimension to most player characters. By their very nature, they usually remain free of complex emotional depth to allow wider player identification and personality transferal.
Which is why, I think, so many Japanese RPG's leave their protagonists mute, and reduce the need for complex emotional choices to simple YES/NO answers.
Games were the player character has pre-defined ideals, a certain way of looking at things, and whose behavior is strictly defined, down to their sense of humour and how they behave towards NPC's, I believe, narrow the possibilities of the player identifying with that character. The characters may benifit, but if the player decides "Hey, this guy is an asshole" then they'll lose interest in his plight.
Different people look for different things in a PC, but most seem happy to put themselves in the shoes of an undefined, faceless avatar. Hence the popularity of FPS games, in which we inhabit a world where the only issue is moving foward and the only questions they have to ask themselves is whether to reload before rounding the next corner.
QuoteChrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII didn't have characters, or stories for that matter. The most basic and overused cliches, in a row, 350 times in the duration of the game. It amazes me how low the standard must have become if people say FF VII is the best story-driven game they've played, or they connect with the hollow puppet that is Cloud.
Right on. Square has, for a long time, suffered from a dirge of poor ideas supported only by their hefty bank rolls and drooling fans who will consume anything they make.
As for games with strong narratives and player characters, I think they are far and away the superior approach to game making- unless you take the route Ultima did, with literally PROJECTING the player into the fantasy world like a fish out of water and forcing them to help out in a hopeless cause. That worked because as the games developed, so did the Avatar's knowledge of the world.
Also, empty-headed characters like Chrono do not suspend your disbelief, ergo, they make people immediately aware that it is a game they are playing rather than an experience. In contrast, there have been some games where I was so caught up in the plight of the main character that I'd invested emotion in his outcome- Vampire: Redemption and Siege of Avalon come to mind here, both rpgs but both very different in their approach.
Lastly, I don't think most people play games to imagine themselves
as they are now in the game world with a gun or a knife. It's like old p&p D&D, GURPS, or Rifts, etc. You roll a character around a series of skills and quirks that you like, but ultimately you give them talents and even weaknesses you certainly don't possess to make them viable in the fantasy world. In turn, you create an alter ego which you use to adventure with. With games where the protagonist is already established, I can see this becoming a problem if your ideals/personality completely clashes with that of the character, but I rarely see that happen in games; most of the time the characters are very middle-of-the-road, anti-evil (but more and more anti-hero as well) and typically behave like smart-asses to attempt to inject some life in the character. Bear in mind that most game designers are not accomplished authors and lack much subtlety when it comes to character development, so the characters almost always fall heavily into cliches as a result- something I've come to accept through the years.
Anyway, I hope that answered some questions without making people say 'omg progz, j00 think Square are dumb?!'
Square's best games are usually the ones they took risks with, creative or otherwise.
Vagrant Story, Xenogears, Parasite Eve, etc.
I think the FF games have become far to reliable on the "Save The World" lark to really offer anything interesting. I've played them less with each release, to the point where I played X2 for about fifteen minutes before I realized I had absolutely no interest in its characters, their conflicts, or their world.
Or course most game franchises usually end up repeating themselves.
Are any of the Tomb Raider games actually that much different from the last? Or Resident Evil? Or Metal Gear?
Even, dare I say, Guybrush found himself on Monkey Island, facing off against Le Chuck, four times. :P
It's not about repetition being bad. It's repetition of what, that's the issue. Metal Gear games are essentially the same thing, honed better each time. But boy, characterization? Spades. I severily dislike Snake for being for going '...huh?' all the time and generally being boneheaded, but they pull it off: I dislike him as a CHARACTER, not for lacking character. He's like a big baby that only knows how to kill, and we've seen him grow from game to game, enriching to his utilitarian understanding of ethics slowly with absolutes he picks up just to keep sane as he starts to realize what the patriots are and what they're doing... generally, a job very well done on that end.
I think Kojima made a big mistake when he traded Raiden for Snake. A mistake he admits.
Snakes story in Sons Of Liberty seemed far more interesting. Its a shame we weren't let experience it as the player.
Raiden was a pointless character, with little or no depth beyond his thin backstory and his relationship with Rose.
Jack and Rose....wait a minute!
TITANIC! :o
Japanese RPGs often have a lack of character in their main character, but there are plenty that don't... uh, have a lack...! My all-time favourite game ever, Terranigma, has a main character with more personality than most adventure games, and the story is very open to taking different paths.
To label all RPGs as having stiff storylines and blank main characters is just ignorant. There are so many of different characteristics, JUST like adventure games. Imagine if someone came here and said that adventure games suck because they've played things like King's Quest.
To stick up for the RPGs that -do- have the stiff storylines, part of the fun is that you still go around talking to different people, doing your own mini quests or playing the games mini games... you make the story yourself a lot of the time. The same could be said for adventure games with avatar-ish characters, though there usually is more room to do so in an RPG simply because of the freedom of levelling up and shopping and whatnot. I find adventure games have a higher chance and by design are much more susceptable to being one dimensional and stiff.
Actually, I'll also mention my second favourite game ever, Breath of Fire II. This game had a very avatar-ish main character, who never spoke and you occasionally gave YES/NO directions to. Yet, that game had one of the most impressive storylines ever, several very different endings and many different paths throughout the game. You would play it 10 times and play a completely different way each time.
My third favourite game ever if Final Fantasy IV, which had what I consider to be an absolute operatic storyline. The main character had tonnes of personality and spoke all the time, making his own value judgements with no input from you whatsoever, and yet compared to the previous two games I mentioned, a very linear storyline. That didn't matter at all, the game knew what it was doing so I didn't -need- to have any input into the story. Awesome game.
I didn't say all rpgs are this or that. I said some japanese are such. I have an extensive rpg background, some of my favourite gaming experiences were with rpgs and computer rpgs such as Ultima Underworld, A.D.O.M and Magic Candle. I've played a lot of computer games, and sadly, a lot of japanese rpgs because either I didn't know any better at the time than to waste gaming hours level grinding for some bullshit game, or because they simply were pretty enough to warrant the grind.
Terranigma, for all it's charms (gameplay and graphics, mostly) didn't have what I would call a charismatic main character. The issue is with the overused child chosen one cliche. It's been done so much, if someone's going to do it, they better give it a different spin. Now, I didn't finish Terranigma (gave up when animals started talking) but I didn't see much variation of the same cliche themes as far as I got. But it's also been a while.
'making your own story' is a copout, in a story-driven medium, in my opinion. If you did that, awesome for you, you had the mindset for it, but most of these games didn't give me much incentive to fill in the blanks because they're so formulaic. I *did* fill in the blanks when I played say, Dreamweb because it's so idiosyncratic, you can't help but think about Ryan's life and whatnot. Just reading the manual blows your mind, really. The game opens with a goregeous overhead screen of you in your sleeping girlfriend's room, a fan above you spinning, so serene and beautiful, an oasis from the otherwise ugly game setting. You have to wonder, what happened last night, was it a good night, did she sleep well? Should I disturb her? Should I quietly leave?
I've never had that with 'LOL YOU'RE THE CHOSEN ONE, HERE IS AN ENCHANTED SWORD' japanese rpgs. They're just stale storylines, with little new or exciting about them, and it seems they don't mind being that at all. Fantasy Quest 32 is like 31 or 30 before it, just with new graphics, interchangable characters and let's say, a new battle system. Fans seem content with this, publishers seem content with not taking any chances. What you get? Empty games.
You say FF 4 has an 'operatic' plot, I say you haven't seen opera (for good or worse). You say Breath of Fire II had an impressive storyline (I've finished BoF and BoF II) and I say it's the absolute in cliche overwritten colossal storyline. I know, tastes... but still, we should be able to recognize good stories in games when we see them, and not settle for mediocrity just because of nostalgia or because that's all we've played.
I think the problem is that you see a cliche, and label that as a bad thing, whereas I don't. I can get over a "you're the chosen hero" plot, as long as the other things in the game make it fun for me. I -loved- the characters in FFIV, and I -loved- the characters in BoFII, and the fact that you stopped playing Terranigma when the animals started talking means you BARELY played any of the game at all.
Where's Rincewind? He'd back me up on that one.
There are only so plots you can use to have a hero running around with a sword in an RPG. I congratulate people who stray from this and try something new, but I still love that style of game. Much the same as the way I still love picking up items and using them on things and solving puzzles. It's not nostalgia, it's the kind of game I like.
It is just too bad those are 10+ years old. JRPG's have staled, they have practically nothing new to offer (like adventure games) and are defined by the cliches and idiocities of the genre.
When the developers should have strived to give the player more freedom they have not improved much on the basic formula other than graphics.
http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html
I personally enjoy advancements in games and the freedom that seems to increase continuously. JRPGs are a genre where new games can be released with a bad plot about a princess and a knight and be called "classic" cause kids playing NES didn't know of any better. They rely on too many crutches IMO.
ARGH!!! I just wrote a big post and it was lost. Fuck. Fuckitty fuck.
Okay, I'll do my best to sum it up.
Admittedly, RPGs have in general been going downhill for a long time, and I was talking about those previous games mainly in the context of the time they were released, but without a doubt they are still my favourite games ever and I play them constantly even these days. I don't play that many RPGs these days unless they have "Harvest Moon" in the title. I'm playing one called Iron Feather right now which is very, very pretty, but a little lacking storywise. I recently bought Children of Mana but have yet to even take it out of the plastic wrapping, and I've heard it's a dungeon trawler that doesn't live up to the orignal SNEs Secret of Mana.
I just want to point anyone who's interested in the direction of this article written about FFIV by Tim Rogers: http://www.insertcredit.com/features/ffdog/ffiv/ffivindex.html
It pretty much sums up my feelings on the game.
There are still plenty of awesome RPGs being released that either take things in a new direction or just do the old thing really well. Skies of Arcadia is a VERY excellent game and Vince will back me up on -that- one. I hope. I would be thrilled if more RPGs were like that.
Also take into account that a lot of decent RPGs don't get released in the west. Also, I play a lot of games in Japanese and there are often things that get cut from the story or messed up in translation, and these can have a significant effect on the coolness factor of a game. ALSO take into account that a lot of RPGs are so into taking things in a new direction that you probably just don't think of them when you think of RPGs, so of course the stereotypical ones are what you're thinking of, and of course they're just getting more and more stereotypical as time goes on.
As further examples off the top of my head, noone should discount the -excellent- RPGs that have been coming out of the Mario franchise. Paper Mario 1 and 2 are both AMAZING games are easily in my top ten. Mario and Luigi RPG is also a great game. Again, I bought the sequel and again I haven't played it yet, but the original was a very very good game with some very unique approaches to gameplay and plot and yet still followed in the traditional style of RPGs.
I'll also mention that I haven't played a FF game since 6. They all look like utter shit to me. BUT I must say that I7m beginning to get interested in the latest one. They have promo movies of it playing in all the convenience stores here and it looks and sounds pretty damn impressive.
Also, I haven't played any of them but I've never heard a bad word about Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2, which when I first heard about it, sounded like the most spastic, ridiculous, insane, stupid ideas for game ever. Now I find myself wanting to get back to Aust. where I have access to playstations so I can find out for myself. Most of the people who have been telling me how good it is are the kinds of people who don't even play RPGs normally, and would ordinarilly be making fun of the game just like I did. They were all beaten into submission by it's ... fun-ness, apparently. I can't help but be interested now. That and for a couple of weeks there, you couldn't go anywhere in Japan without hearing the theme song it was associated with, which was pretty catchy, though I have no idea if it has that song associated with it in the US/European releases.
EDIT: Oh! Silly me. And of course, Giftpia is one of the greatest games ALL time. A very unique RPG with a fantastic atmosphere.
EDIT: And this is really off-topic, I don't even know why I'm saying this... you've all just got me mushy thinking about why I love these games so much. As one example, in Breath of Fire II, there are really sort of two girls that you can imagine you're chasing as the main character; Katt and Nina. I chose Katt because she was one of the best characters I'd ever happened across in a game up to that point. Anyway, there's this one scene where another NPC has the hots for Katt, and Katt panics and runs behind you [main character]. The NPC, Tigaa (Tiger? Can't remember the spelling) gets the idea that you two are a couple and proposes that he will fight you for her. You're given the opportunity at this stage to say, "Oh heck no, we're just friends. Have her." or "We are more than friends, you stay the heck away from her" (in a nutshell).
If you choose the former, the story continues on as normal and Katt goes on to try and convince Tiger she isn't in love with him on her own. If you choose to fight him, you er, fight him. Now, there's NO way to beat him. It's not written into the script, he has unlimited HP. But I tried SO GOD-DAMNED HARD to kick that son of a bitch' ass. I would reload my game every time I died, go off and level, have another go at it... "Maybe he has like, 99,999 HP or something" I would tell myself. In the end, I would concede defeat and the story would continue on the same path.
Now, I could say that it was cruel of the programmers to put that little path in, especially with the added frustration of an unbeatable fight. You could say that there was no point, and technically, there wasn't. Katt didn't warm up to you anymore because of your efforts to win her heart.
But for me, it made a huge difference. It made me feel really, really cool that they had at least acknowledged that some players would want the player character to end up with Katt, and it made me feel so cool that I at least had that chance to fight for her, regardless of the result. From then on, I felt that the little sprite of Katt DID acknowledge my little player sprite had fought for her, and that there was a spark. It wasn't there in the code, but it was there in my head as I played the game.
This isn't an example of, "Do you want to do this?" "Are you Sure?" "Are you sure?" x 100... but it was the tiniest little thing that made such a difference to my overall impression of the game. I've even considered hacking the game and inventiny my own ending to that fight where you can beat Tigaa. I know there are hundreds of BoFII fans out there that went through the same thing as me, according to all the threads I've ever read asking desperately if there's a way to defeat him.
There were many moments during that game that I cried too. The one that -always- gets me going everytime is when Rand's mother sacrifices herself (getting squished between two blocks of stone) in front of his eyes. I don't care if the game has a cliched plot, everything in it meant a lot to me and has shaped the way I think about games and storylines in general.
It's about those tiny, tiny little things, for me. Not the overall storyline.
As far as FFIV goes, the couple I was really interested in was Rydia and Edge. There were these tiny, nothing moments of programming added in where Rydia would go over to Edge... look to the side, look back. GOD, there was so much emotion wrapped up in those tiny commands. They made the game for me.
In summary, this is probably what role-playing game means to me. The programmers giving you even a tiny opportunity to imagine your own little bits of story. If I had no interest in Edge and Rydia for example, there was no need to pay any attention to those little things. If I did, and I did, I could make a mountain out of them, which I did.
As one more tedious example, in Terranigma, there's a scene where you are on a ship with upper-world Elle, just having saved her from some ghosts. She's been a cold bitch to you so far, but I used to stand my character next to her and make them watch the sea a little together. I'm that much of a nerd, but the story left itself open enough that I could do that and make it apart of -my- story, the story I wanted the game to have, and it didn't feel silly at all. Not like those times I would get my character in Secret of Mana to constantly walk into the "sexy" green haired girl NPCs and make it look like they were having sex. That was silly. ^_^
If we're going to talk about story-driven RPGs then we're going to talk about Planescape: Torment, which is pretty much is completely unbeatable in terms of depth, breadth and quality of writing (and has a pretty great main character too).
Unfortunatly it's 2 am and I'm generally lazy, so I'll expand upon this in the morning!
Wow, I've never even heard of it but if it's as good as all that... what system was it on?
It's a PC game, no idea how difficult it is to get hold of these days though.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/planescape-torment
Try not to read too many reviews and especially not the Wikipedia article, which completely gives away the story.
The only good RPG Squaresoft made and it is one of my favourite all time games, and they have beaten it ever is Xenogears. There was an unofficial sequel called Xenosaga which was decent but didn't really live up to its pre-decessor.
You may notice my alias which is Xenogia and has been that for a very long time.
QuoteIf you choose the former, the story continues on as normal and Katt goes on to try and convince Tiger she isn't in love with him on her own. If you choose to fight him, you er, fight him. Now, there's NO way to beat him. It's not written into the script, he has unlimited HP. But I tried SO GOD-DAMNED HARD to kick that son of a bitch' ass. I would reload my game every time I died, go off and level, have another go at it... "Maybe he has like, 99,999 HP or something" I would tell myself. In the end, I would concede defeat and the story would continue on the same path.
Now, I could say that it was cruel of the programmers to put that little path in, especially with the added frustration of an unbeatable fight. You could say that there was no point, and technically, there wasn't. Katt didn't warm up to you anymore because of your efforts to win her heart.
Sure, this is exactly a great example of awful game design.
It's fine game design. The problem is that you're not receptive to it, you're not the sort of person these games are designed for.
It created passion inside me for the game. A game shouldn't just give you what you want, it should tease you sometimes. A good game is like good sex with a temptress, not a prostitute who does what you tell her to do ^_^
I definetly agree with Kinoko on RPG games and their elements.
Clearly, bringing up console games was the kiss of death.... lesson learned. ;)
Surely there are adventure games whose protagonist/player character is not well defined at all... being an Access fan, I'd contrast Jason (Amazon) to Tex Murphy (all of his games), where Jason has no personality at all, and Tex has it in spades.
Another game with an uncharacterized protagonist could be Deja Vu, and a lot of the old text adventures (Deadline?). I think I mentioned Prodigal from the get-go, whose player character is a blank canvas.
I'm wondering how you think these character decisions affect the narrative, not in a sense of "good story" or "bad story," because that's a matter of opinion, but in terms of how the games play out, exposition, the kinds of things that the player can be expected to do, etc. :)
Ah, if we're bringing up text adventures, I think the black avatar character is especially good. I particularly liked the freedom in Leather Goddesses of Phobos. Not only could you choose the sex of your character, but you could choose how dirty they were.
Quote from: Kinoko on Mon 13/03/2006 04:30:37
It's fine game design.
No, no it's not. Not in anyone's book if they're sane.
QuoteThe problem is that you're not receptive to it, you're not the sort of person these games are designed for.
I agree I'm not cut out for jrpgs, I was when I was 12 and didn't know better/had enough time for them and an overactive imagination. I'm honest enough to admit these games, as many hours as they took from me in my youth, are NOT good games. It's one thing to add to the games yourself because you're young and bored, or teenaged and lonely, and another thing to proclaim the games good because you did this. A game of connect 4 with a friend can become the most epic battle if you two are bored enough and feel like blowing it up.
Your whore/temptress analogy is flawed because in your example it's not that you were teased and eventually you got what you were to get, it's that you were teased and eventually got fuck all. When women do this to me I punch them in the face.
I made a design ethic in my Illusion of Murder series of games, where my characters personality and attitude changes and develops through each game. At the start of the game he is new to crime solving and is niave and too polite with people but as the game progresses on he becomes a bit more hard-boiled and arrogant due to people not helping him.
QuoteYour whore/temptress analogy is flawed because in your example it's not that you were teased and eventually you got what you were to get, it's that you were teased and eventually got fuck all. When women do this to me I punch them in the face.
Say this to yourself - "Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean" .. j/k
Ah poor poor Helm, you can't appreciate the beauty that is simply having emotion and excitement without a big prize at the end of it.
To be honest, the number of games I love that are still sitting around either on apartment or on my computer, saved right before the end, is staggering. I often have so much playing the game that once I can see it's gonna end, that's when my interest wanes. I can live without the ending sometimes, as long as I had fun on the journey. Mario and Luigi RPG is one of those games... still haven't finished it but I'm totally satisfied from playing most of it.
I recommend that blue ocean thing too. ^_^
EDIT: My argument against that being "bad" game design is that it does what it was intended to do for the people intended to enjoy it. Just because it's not your thing, doesn't make it wrong. It's right for me. I wouldn't presume to tell an FPS player what makes a good FPS game because I don't really enjoy them and I hardly ever play them. The fans of something should be the ultimate judge of something. If there are no fans... then you've got problems.
All games are designed for a specific audience, and if one person doesn't like it, this doesn't make a bad genre.
QuoteI recommend that blue ocean thing too. ^_^
Do you mean Star Ocean Kinoko? They are good games if a bit cliched, but still very good especially number 2 :D
I meant your calm blue ocean advice :P
One, you half-jokingly suggest I am emotionless when it comes to games. I am not and I don't think there's any point to defend such a thing in detail. It's just rude of you to suggest this, as if there can be no other reasons I am not enjoying fake choices in games.
Two, you interpret my position to mean that I enjoy the result of a game and not the process of it. The whole point in that sense, was that when a game makes promises about what it offers, like oh, say, branching path gameplay (do you want to help me? YES/NO <- suggests there's different paths, the extent of which can be scrutinized and discussed later, from Blade Runner multipath to FoA 3 paths to whatever. There's something the to discuss, not just a FAKE CHOICE) I will appreciate it on how much it delivers on what it boasts, not what thinly-veiled illusions are presented. This is not an extreme position. If the game says '50 hours of completely linear gameplay, where choices are fake and all the key elements are cliche'ed to death' then YES, if you say what I just described is a 'genre', then if I bought that and complained, you'd be right in saying that a non-fan should not criticize. But as I said, I like rpgs, and deny that horrid thing I described are it. I've been roleplaying probably before you had your first copy of windows and I do appreciate the genre for what it can offer. It's not that I am not a fan of the whole genre, it's that I have opinions as to what is a good example of it. So check your angle of 'lol if you don't like rpgs, why talk about them?'
Yes, in the end as long as people buy final fantasy games, more will come out. I am commenting on how sad the situation is that people ARE buying these games and think them good and do not know any better.
The Star Ocean series doesn't have fake choices, and a lot of yes/no choices actually change the ending of the final game. There are over twenty different endings in them which means there is a lot of replay value in them. I personally don't like Square Enix games, but a lot of other companies excellent games like Atlus, Working Designs and the smaller companies. I find Square Enix to be the Microsoft of the RPG world :X
And I agree with you on games that are terribly like what you described. But in the end, if a game has an element like that, I don't think's necessarilly a bad thing. As long as they manage to make the game fun, job well done as far as I'm concerned. I think that is the best judge of good game design.
A game that has those yes/no options, promised more, did not pull off the 'enjoyment' thing... sure, that sucks.
I'm guilty of using that line myself a lot, but I think we should be careful when saying, "people who don't know any better". I think you could make the argument that sometimes knowing the general school of game design can ruin something that would otherwise be enjoyable.
And for the record, I was role playing long before I had my first copy of windows too. I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean.
What is good game design, anyway? Who has the right to define good game design?
In theory, I agree.
I think practically we can all agree there are certain rules that should be generally followed. I just don't believe breaking those rules is necessaily a bad thing. It can sometimes be a very good thing.
Of course it's all opinion, OS Squinky, but would you say the opinion that a game that tries to mislead about it's qualities (fake choices, fake open-endedness) is a game that stands to be criticized? That's what I'm saying.
If this discussion deteriorates to - as it was threatened - "that's my opinion, that's your opinion, let's agree to disagree" whereas I don't mind, it'll be a bit of a shame. Nobody is authority on what good game design is, but most people can discuss this and agree on several threads without the knee-jerk 'omg opinion!' thing having to come to play.
About people not knowing any better. A lot of people have only played console games, and those sure are based on different game design philosophy (or philosophies) than the personal computer counterparts, therefore it's safe to say that someone who has grown up on Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy series and has never played Ultima games or Magic Candle games or roguelikes is not making a very educated point when he's saying 'these are the best stories in games, ever!' Sure, it's his opinion, but it's an uninformed opinion, and I think this uninformed state encourages the market to remain mediocre.
If he says they're the best stories -ever-, I agree. But he's allowed to think they're awesome.
I agree also, this is what keeps the quality of games low. It infuriates me a lot actually, when I see someone who I know has very limited experience with games talk about how something is really great, when I know it isn't. Movies, books, anything. We're all like that, really. But sometimes I have to knock myself down off my high horse too... sometimes appreciating things regardless of an unexperienced mind can be just as good a thing as knowing a lot about a genre and having an informed opinion.
Well, the issue with consoles in general is that the devs think (often mistakenly) that they have the pulse of the public for who they are making the games, so whenever Square or one of the bigger companies releases a mediocre game, at least 5 companies follow suit with something equally trite and uninventive, further saturating the market with boring titles. The pc market has gotten more and more like this over the years (the sheer number of average to poor first person shooters come to mind) and it's all about jumping into some niche and riding it out until the end. Square has been doing this with rpgs for a very long time now, and I don't see them changing anytime soon, unless you consider Dirge of Cerberus to be a massive departure for them (which I don't). I think that one thing 80's-early 90's computer game devs had over everyone else was time to really make a roleplaying game into a thing of beauty rather than mass produced drivel. Bethesda is one of the few companies that still takes this sort of thing seriously, having spent almost five yeras on Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Hopefully the time will be justified, as I've only been seriously disappointed by one of their games so far (Battlespire).
Well I've been roleplaying for about 5 years at most, but I have played most of the SNES, N64 and PS1 RPGs and a couple of PS2. RPGs generally goes about the story where other genres could be held together by other things, so i guess it's easy too assume some RGPs to have the best stories since that's the thing staring you in the face most of the time haha. For me Suikoden 2 had the coolest story, but I never understood the main character, a kid with sticks that's able to do so much, but i guess that's part of it. Even though the story was almost linear (only a couple of different endings) it didn't stop me from playing it 5 times over. Xenogears is awsome.
I have no point and agree with everyone :)
Quote. Even though the story was almost linear (only a couple of different endings) it didn't stop me from playing it 5 times over. Xenogears is awsome.
I love you buloght .. one day I want to try make a Xenogears point-n-click side story. I've finished this game ten times and have the Perfect Works book which explains the history and the world that Xenogears puts itself in.
For me, the two most recent RPG games that pulled me in were the new Vampire and Arx fatalis. I didn't know much about either, and I guess that I was partly attracted to Arx for the reason that it was influenced by Ultima Underworld and I had never played it. The character in Arx starts out nameless in a cell, but the world and the detail to it pulled me still in to it. You can even bake your own apple pies in it. Vampire did the same thing, your character got bitten and the player had to learn to adapt to a new society/circumstances. The thing that is great about RPGs is that they allow you to be placed in someone else's shoes in a new world, but the japanese console ones seem to be afraid to reinvent themselves and place you in a different person in a world that functions the same as the ones that came before it.
Even Space Rangers 2, which is more like a heir of Star Control than a RPG, managed to immerse me into it better than any console rpg I've played in the last 3-4 years (also thanks to the fresh, vast and detailed world), which I believe is what RPG's should strive for.
As for design, there are rules. Some can be broken for artistic effect, but it can retract from the enjoyability of it (who actually listens to Stockhausen?).
I believe that good design should always strive to giving the player more choices and take the invisible barriers further away from sight. JRPG's and point-anc-dick adventures are so tightly scripted that the world runs more like a cause-and-effect thing related to the player's actions than a real world. This can be hidden except when the choices of the player contradict with the ficitional character's (eg. Broken Sword: Stobbard is a tourist that just decides to investigate murder and fly around Europe, yeah, right).
Some movies do this well, but they usually have the antagonist perform the contradictory/morally questionable actions and lose.
Tightly scripted characters with predefined agendas have to be something special and well thought out, some of the causes for actions cannot be 100% visible to the player, else the illusion fails. Who knows what personal tragedies/experiences have caused us to flock here, probably they are more complex than just I loved MI.
A trick for getting around the established morales and choices of the player is to place the character in a world with strictly defined rules (asylyms) or surreal/fantasy enviroments. Realistic adventure games often have more difficulties with the player identifying, agreeing and enjoying the games (me and BS).
My opinion is that movies and games are quite different, and games should give the player more options, even if the character has predefined agendas.
In fact, why hasn't anyone made a adventure game where the only npc is the main character and all other characters are only not only there to place rubber-bands and id-cards for him/her to find but also controllable? Like TIM, where the main character is the ball falling from the top and you build the maze around him/her to guide him/her to his/her goal.
I didn't mean to have this degenerate into a "good game design is a matter of opinion" discussion. I'm seriously curious as to what people think good game design actually is.
After all, in the industry, the prevailing mindset is that a well-designed game is one that sells well...
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Mon 13/03/2006 15:29:40
After all, in the industry, the prevailing mindset is that a well-designed game is one that sells well...
Actually it's more along the lines of "a well designed game is the one that gets you the contract". Notice that there's not much emphasis on production in that statement ;)
"Good" game design is hard to define. So I won't try.
I will say, though, that I was always more attracted to a game with a story. It didn't have to be a particulary strong or original tale, just one that made me want to keep playing.
I do admit that I've grown tired of the Japanese "style" of RPG, or rather the whole "Save The World" thing, to the point where I now play a lot less of them than I did when I was younger.
I will also say that people can be a bit hard on JPRG characters. These games are after all meant to be played by all ages. Giving them options and choices that we as adults take for granted may be a little heavy for younger players. A western RPG such as the Fallout series, with its characters being free to choose their own moral path, or to indulge in sex, drugs, murder and general mayhem, isn't meant to be played by younger gamers.
I see little wrong with JRPGs apart from their reliance to ape what has gone before. Design-wise, a good JRPG is just as valid as any western release. The story may be corny, but the game itself will offer everything an RPG player would want.
Hell, I'll go this far: Good Game Design = The ability to make the player want to play.
Of course this will change from person to person. Greatly.
Helm, you cannot imagine how much I disagree with your shunning of "fake options"! To the point of foaming my mouth! (calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean)
THE STORY OF A GAME IS WEAVED IN THE PLAYER'S BRAIN, NOT IN CODE!
Sure, the "why wouldn't you want to help?" is absurd - not because it's a "fake" option, just stupid.
Imagine a situation: in a game, you break up with your girlfriend. You can end a farewell phone conversation with "I just lost my time living with you, never could be what I wanted to be", or "I still love you, just need some time to sort things out", or "I got a better biatch!1". After each choice, the avatar says it and hangs the receiver. On the level of the scripting, no option is saved and no option has any influence on the way the story proceeds. Do you really think it would be better to leave the choice out of the game, just because it "pretends not to be linear"?
the only 2 jprg i've ever finished is suikoden 1 and suikoden 2, and to me they are two of my favourite games in any genre ever.
but thankfully helm has played almost every game out there, and knows everything there is to know about everything, so i'll just ask him before i waste my preciousss time on playing a stupid game. in fact, i'm gonna wait for him to make a perfect game, since he knows what he is talking about. i can't wait for the awesome story and deep deep main character.
*mordalles waits patiently*
Actually, I've been playing xenosaga 2 recently. It is like watching a film with bits of interaction inbetween. Still, I stuck with it, and found the game open itself up and then I had lots of fun going around a few towns doing sidequests. It's this part in RPGs that i find mega addictive.
There are some great RPGs coming out this year:
Dragon Quest (Latest one)
Rogue galaxy (By Level 5, who did the sublime dark chronicle)
Kingdom hearts 2
FF12
All of these games appear to have ditched the turn based fighting in favour of real time battles. YAHOO!!
And I'm highly excited about Oblivion! The previous game in the elder scrolls series, morrowind, was long, dull and too big for its own good. But once you play it enough, you get hooked and I must have spent 200+ hours playing that game!
Quote from: Mordalles on Mon 13/03/2006 20:38:22
but thankfully helm has played almost every game out there, and knows everything there is to know about everything, so i'll just ask him before i waste my preciousss time on playing a stupid game. in fact, i'm gonna wait for him to make a perfect game, since he knows what he is talking about. i can't wait for the awesome story and deep deep main character.
But Helm doesn't know anything about anything! He's just throwing around meaningless words! Words are useless! Stop overrationalizing! Live in the moment, duuude.
QuoteDragon Quest (Latest one)
If you mean Journey of the Cursed King it is turn based, and it's rather crap. Radiata Stories (by the Enix team of Square-Enix) was far better because it takes a hilarious stab at weak japanese rpg plotlines and characters while wallowing in a cheap cliched plotline with cheaper characters. I especially enjoy how EVERYONE wants to fight if you kick them in the ass, and a great many of them will join your party. The characters are all over the top cliches (bitchy, scantily clad women, tough guys with swords 8x larger than they are, scrawny old men that are tougher than anyone in the game). It's a nice change to play a game that knows how silly jap rpg plotlines have become and isn't afraid to take advantage of it.
Quotend I'm highly excited about Oblivion! The previous game in the elder scrolls series, morrowind, was long, dull and too big for its own good. But once you play it enough, you get hooked and I must have spent 200+ hours playing that game!
This is a contradictory statement. If something is long, dull, and too big for its own good then
why would you keep playing it? What is there to hook you about a long, dull, and overlarge game? And why would you look forward to the sequel?
Perhaps he means that if you play it a little, it's terrible and goes downhill, but eventually you get over that 'hump' and the meter starts going up again.
Goldmund, The problem with that is that you've brought up a brand new situation that isn't the one helm was talking about. I don't want to speak for Helm* but that's not much of a fake option. A fake option would be
"Do you want to get back together with me?"
YES/NO
YES
"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"
YES/NO
YES
"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"
YES/NO
YES
"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"
YES/NO
YES
"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"
YES/NO
NO
"That's what I thought, goodbye!"
"I still love you..."
End of conversation.
In my opinion at least.
Mordalles, someone has to be the best there ever was at something in order to have an opinion about it? How awkward, I guess we should close down the Crit Lounge then!
* Ok I'll speak for Helm a little right here "Penis penis penis penis"
QuotePerhaps he means that if you play it a little, it's terrible and goes downhill, but eventually you get over that 'hump' and the meter starts going up again.
Well there's a problem with that idea, Kinoko. Have you played Morrowind? I'm not arguing that he doesn't have the right to say the game is long, dull, and too large, but it certainly makes no sense that you'd dedicate time to a game as involved as Morrowind
believing it to be long and dull when the game is essentially what it is from the start.
QuoteMordalles, someone has to be the best there ever was at something in order to have an opinion about it? How awkward, I guess we should close down the Crit Lounge then!
Stop picking on my lounge...It's all I've got ;(.
I haven't played it, I was just throwing the possibility out there for argument's sake.
In my opinion, interactivity, and hence puzzle solving potential, subplots and extras should be dropped if they inhibit character development or slow down the narrative of the game. The game should be about telling a story in an interesting way first and then puzzles to help move the player from place to place.
A successful game, in my eyes, would be one where you can remember the characters rather than the puzzles you had to solve. ( ie you remember Sherlock Holmes for how he solved the crime and not the crime itself). Interactivityhas to stem from something aswell, everything in every room could potentially be used on something but does it help the story in anyway( ie Anyone play Max Payne 2? Then you know what I mean)? if not then you should not be able to use it in any particular way.
I think the best story driven games (not lately though) are the Zelda games. They showed that story related games could be just as sucessful as "timing" based games (Super Mario Bros. etc), pure puzzle games and sports games.
Quote from: SmootH on Tue 14/03/2006 04:20:13
In my opinion, interactivity, and hence puzzle solving potential, subplots and extras should be dropped if they inhibit character development or slow down the narrative of the game. The game should be about telling a story in an interesting way first and then puzzles to help move the player from place to place.
See, that's the thing, though--if the story is the end-all and be-all, why make it a game in the first place? Why not just a movie?
There's a popular saying in the text adventure community, by the creator of one of the most popular text adventure creation programs, that a text adventure is "a narrative at war with a crossword". In other words, there are two elements of an adventure game (though he was talking about text adventures, I think the same principles apply to graphic adventures): the story, and the puzzles. (I'd argue there's also a third element, actually, but that's a topic for another time...) Those two elements aren't always in harmony, and can't both be maximized; a balance has to be struck between them.
Where that balance is struck depends on the game. The first adventure games--Dungeon, Zork, etc.--had no story to speak of; they pretty much existed just for the puzzles. The first graphic adventure--King's Quest--didn't have much story to it either. One could argue that things have evolved since then, but there have been more recent games that followed similar lines. Myst is mostly there for the puzzles--sure, there's sort of a thin story tying it all together, but it takes a back seat. And Myst was wildly successful. On the other hand, of course, other games have focused on story, and had easy and almost incidental puzzles. And most games fall somewhere in between.
I don't think it's possible to say that there's any given point where the balance
should be, that either element should always be emphasized in favor of the other. It depends on the game, and what you're going for with it. A different balance works for different games.
That being said, if you
are trying to make a game with an engrossing and interesting story, then putting in a jarring puzzle that has nothing to do with the story and seems totally out of place in the gameworld is completely counterproductive, yes.
As far as the actual topic of the thread--I think an undefined character is harder to pull off in a graphic adventure because, well, you can
see the character; you know what he looks like; you can see his actions. (I suppose it would be possible to allow the player to customize his character in detail beforehand, but I don't know of any games that have done so (which isn't to say that they don't exist; I just don't know about them--and no, RLatBTAT doesn't count).) Also, you necessarily don't have as much freedom of action, because it's not possible to create graphics for every possibility, whereas in a text adventure creating a few lines of text to account for anything that could happen isn't as big a deal. [EDIT: Well, not
anything that can happen, obviously, but still one can allow many more actions in a text adventure than would be feasible in a graphic adventure.] So those, I think, are among the
practical reasons why graphic adventures have steered toward well-defined characters. But as far as which is
better...again, I think it depends on the game, and what you're going for. There's certainly some correlation between well-defined stories and well-defined characters, but I don't think either
necessarily implies the other...and I'm rambling and I don't know if I'm really saying anything of substance, so I'll shut up now.
Goldmund: in your scenario, a choice WAS made, the repercussions of this choice might be close to minute, scripting-wise. But a choice was made. A choice is not presented but fake. I am very aware that there is no 'freedom' in video games and it's quite an art-form to make a good illusion of freedom for the player. We as game designers are a bit more critical when we play these games than the average joe because usually we know how they're made and we're testing the limits. But still, a choice with minute represcussions, a choice with some reprecussions, a choice with game-reaching repercussions, these are all things to discuss on their own merits. FAKE choices don't and shouldn't exist in computer games.
Richard Longhurst and the box that ate time. Beard option. This isn't a fake choice. When you adjust it, more or less beard appears on the character. That's all this choice dones. But I laughed, it added to the game, it COULD have added more but that's a different discussion. I didn't click on +beard and have the game tell me "oh come on, you don't need more beard".
The thing is, a choice is the way we interact with a game. Even if the choice is limited, like in most linear adventure games, go solve this puzzle or that puzzle first, when the game spells it out: YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES, and then essentially robs you, that's not nice, it's like pissing on the interactivity principle. If that's how it is, why don't the game just do a huge cutscene from beginning to end and tell me what my character does and I'll see it later. Oh, wait
Mordalles, good work on flexing your impressive ironic muscle. You've made a great impression on your peers.
Quote from: Helm on Tue 14/03/2006 07:41:18
Richard Longhurst and the box that ate time. Beard option. This isn't a fake choice. When you adjust it, more or less beard appears on the character. That's all this choice dones. But I laughed, it added to the game, it COULD have added more but that's a different discussion. I didn't click on +beard and have the game tell me "oh come on, you don't need more beard".
I would have laughed at that. Enjoyment = mission accomplished.
Sure. Some aren't as easily amused.
I was thinking about your 'sitting next to the woman on the ship' thing. If the game aknowledged that sort of role-playing, what you did would indeed be grounds on which to say the game is great. If the game perhaps, when you moved there and looked at the sea together, after a while subtly switched the music to aknowledge what you were trying to do, that'd be great. That would be extremely little scripting that DOES go a long way to make the experience so much more fuller.
But as it stands, you put that extra bit in on your own, completely, and it's a very nebulous argument to suggest that 'the game was so good that it called for me adding to it on my own'. You could add to a connect 4 match if you felt like it, as I said before.
Somebody mentioned before what ages these games are designed for. Yes, I think this is a key issue. These games seem designed for 10 year olds, the moral choices they usually present and the depth of character that is on display. Doesn't mean a 20 year old can't enjoy a game designed for 10 year olds, though. But if they do, they have to accept that the game will seem to treat them like idiots.
Truly great games, in my opinion ( like Quest for Glory 4 ) have humour and content for all ages. Stuff you'd get when you are 10, stuff you'd get when you're 20 and subtle bits of content you'll appreciate only after you've played the game 10 times.
So from what I gather, you like to be constantly challenged by games. That's fine if so, but I don't. Sometimes I like a story sweet and simple. Sometimes it's nice to see characters set in a much simpler world without a lot of our problems and complications. Sometimes it's nice to have a story that makes you think of childhood again.
EDIT: I just want to make clear that the problem I have with you right now is your hardline stance, believing that what -you- like is what is right. "This kind of game design is crap." Not "I don't like that kind of game".
Plus, my story about the woman on the ship was different... my point about the fight with Tiger was the one I find to be good game design. It didn't feel like they had cut something out of the game, it felt like they had given me something extra.
Well, when Helm says a type of design is crap it's only his opinion, Kinoko. He's certainly welcome to believe it's bad for x number of reasons, but someone else may like it for those same reasons. I just happen to agree with him that rpgs that supply you with bogus interactivity can piss you off. Why do something half-assed, I say; put your whole ass into it, or not at all.
But I used my -whole- ass.
A Lucasarts-style adventure game needs a funny, witty, engaging and unusual main character, who says things that you don't expect, and does the exact things you do expect and want him/her to do.
I liked the Lucasarts games because it was so much fun stepping into the shoes of Guybrush or Indiana Jones or Sam (and Max) or Bernard (and Laverne and Hoagie).
Guybrush in SOMI was designed as a non-character, someone with no identity besides that he wanted to be a pirate, so that you could imprint your own "avatar" sensibility onto him, and that's great because he also definitely had a personality to the way he said things - or was in one scene unable to say things.
By the time of LeChuck's Revenge, Guybrush was Guybrush - I didn't like that they had basically turned him into Indiana Jones, but I didn't mind playing that either, as Indy always had surprises up his sleeve too.
Anyway, a simple "avatar" type main character doesn't work for me in an adventure game. Maybe they could seem just a simple "this is you, this is where you're going and what you're doing" at first, so that the player can get used to who they're playing, but so much of the joy of it is the character, and how he reacts to people and things and places.
I thought it went without saying that my opinion is just that. Well, I guess I shouldn't take any chances. So here it is: everything I say is just my opinion (sometimes even less that that), I hold no faith that others agree with me or that it in fact has any relevance to actuality, reality, truth or what-have-you.
In that case, I'll clarify what I meant with morrowind.
You spend an absolute age just hitting little bugs on the ground which isn't very interesting at all. It takes ages to get to another village or place of interest.. but persisted I did, and my character gained experience and could fight bigger things and had increased his running speed. (Especially when I got these blinding boots of speed and combined them with an item that blocked the blind spell)
The game grew on me, and I became addicted, exploring every nook and cranny, and doing the shedloads of quests, and got past the games awful graphics. (Xbox version)
Well, it looked nice in -some- places. Like the water.
Ah yes, my mistake, dragon quest is turn based.. sorry I forgot it said that where I read about the game. I'm still going to buy it however..
(Especially when I got these blinding boots of speed and combined them with an item that blocked the blind spell)
Ha, good times. I actually used the editor to upgrade those boots so I could jump a mile into the air to cross the large gulfs of water between quests ;D.
Ah, Morrowind. Such a delightful game.
Once, very early in the game, I found a staff that provided levitating. I immediatly used it to float over the ghost wall to the middle of the island, into the volcano and the location where the final battle takes place.
I died.
Oh, and on topic, I don't really have much to say other than that I agree with Helm's points. Balancing the scales of opinion, I am!
I think that there are great games exhibiting strong characters and great games with characters your supposed to copy your personality on. With whatever option you choose, if it's done well, it will work. If it is not done well, it won't work. Either option is up to personal preference, but I've enjoyed games with both sets of characters.
I do think, though, that a stronger character might bring out more interesting puzzle solutions than a generic character. Since their solutions to the puzzles show who they are. Like how in Full Throttle, Ben is a lot more action oriented. He kicks and hits stuff to get things done, wheras a lot of blank characters might get the magic pixie dust, sprinkle it on a ball, do a jig, and the door will open. But like I said, I have no preference either.
-MillsJROSS
The most devastating moment in the game play is when you realise that a choice you made and thought was important, apparently made no difference whatsoever.
So, "fake" options are good and well until you detect their lack of consequence; then the entire game is rendered worthless.
This is why it's always better to construct your game simple and linear to start with, and then expand it if you get the time and possibility.
But there is a difference. You can hurt NPCs with being rude, even when the programmer didn't script their emotional system.
No single line of the code - but a big difference for the player.
EDIT:
Helm, would you like the 'fake option' better, if the scene went like that:
DO YOU WANT TO HELP HIM?
->NO
(the protagonist) - I think, ah... I just...
(the NPC) - Well?
(the protagonist) - Yes, of course I'll help you!
This would reveal much of the protagonist's psyche: he wants to say "NO", you act as his will at the moment, yet he agrees. Mmm?